Regarding Citizens' Assembly Masking

Kraketopia

Kraketopia

Honoured Citizen
Citizen
The Admin Team has come to agreement that the Citizens' Assembly masking creates significantly more work than it's worth, and would like the rest of Europeia's input in this matter. The masking provides no actual benefit to users, as it does not grant access to/powers over any subforums. While we recognize that the masking is a nice form of recognition for Citizens' Assembly members, it creates a significant workload for the Admin Team. This workload distracts the team from doing more productive administrative tasks for Europeia, as well as prevents us from spending time on the numerous other non Admin projects we each undertake for the region. To compensate for the loss of the CA masking, we think having a special sig made for the CA (beyond the current standard one) would be a nice way to recognize CA membership.

So, we would like to know

1) What the public thinks of removing the CA masking given that it has no utility

2) What everyone's ideas for alternative forms of CA designation are, and whether people would be open to a pimped out sig
 
I agree that the CA masking probably could be phased out. I think just the current signature bar should be enough, no need to do any extra work, when what we have is fine (in my opinion).
 
Ditto. Definitely phase it out. And if anybody really needs special recognition for being in the CA the current sig bar should be enough.
 
Please get rid of the CA masking. Something I would have liked to see a long time ago.
 
Can you make a joinable group for the CA Chair to have control of so they can invite/remove members on their own?
 
Aexnidaral Seymour said:
Can you make a joinable group for the CA Chair to have control of so they can invite/remove members on their own?
Click to expand...
What would that joinable group give access to, though? We want the CA to open to everyone from the get-go, so I'm not sure of this option.
 
Aexnidaral Seymour said:
Can you make a joinable group for the CA Chair to have control of so they can invite/remove members on their own?
Click to expand...
That could be looked into, but seeing as how the Citizens' Assembly is currently open access to all, I think it would make more sense for the Chair to maintain a list of current CA membership.
 
1) Does it have no utility? If we change CA Ordinances to just have open admission to the CA because someone is a citizen of the region and not a Senator, then no, it has no utility. As it stands now, the Membership Ordinance states that only those in the CA can vote on CA matters. I'm not against changing it. I'm saying, the Ordinance would need to be changed, and if the region is for that change, let's charge ahead. Why would the Ordinance need to be changed? Because keeping up with Membership would be extra work without that masking? Rather, not extra work (not for someone like me), but definitely not keeping on top of membership would potentially create problems. So we could just change the Ordinance and...goodness that would be the ease we're looking for since a lot of Chairs don't like the work of keeping up that side of things (admin work), and no one would have to worry about making the Chair do that part of their job. Keeping up with who does what would just be based on real activity and not 'you can/can't vote', which might encourage people who want to move up to speak up.

tl;dr I'm for this change and would work to make changes to make this change easier.

2) Sig sounds fine to me. :p
 
Kuramia said:
1) Does it have no utility? If we change CA Ordinances to just have open admission to the CA because someone is a citizen of the region and not a Senator, then no, it has no utility. As it stands now, the Membership Ordinance states that only those in the CA can vote on CA matters. I'm not against changing it. I'm saying, the Ordinance would need to be changed, and if the region is for that change, let's charge ahead. Why would the Ordinance need to be changed? Because keeping up with Membership would be extra work without that masking? Rather, not extra work (not for someone like me), but definitely not keeping on top of membership would potentially create problems. So we could just change the Ordinance and...goodness that would be the ease we're looking for since a lot of Chairs don't like the work of keeping up that side of things (admin work), and no one would have to worry about making the Chair do that part of their job. Keeping up with who does what would just be based on real activity and not 'you can/can't vote', which might encourage people who want to move up to speak up.

tl;dr I'm for this change and would work to make changes to make this change easier.

2) Sig sounds fine to me. :p
Click to expand...
I am still confused to why we'd have to change the ordinance to allow open admission?

You can still keep track of members on your list, they just wouldn't have a separate mask.
 
To Kuramia's point: I don't think changing the masking would mean all citizens become CA members, I think they still have to apply, and we'd just refer to the membership list to see who is a member. As it stands, not all members have the masking anyway, so masking does not even equal membership as it is.
 
Marnip said:
Couldn't we simply have members post an image in their signature to signify membership?
Click to expand...
That's part of what a sig would help accomplish, but we'd still want an official list of membership.
 
Why? Just have the Chair keep a list. Its not that hard and they already do it anyways. From the pov of the Assembly absolutely nothing has to change.
 
To clarify the technical aspect, the current CA masking makes no difference to posting rights at all. It is identical to the citizenship mask.

This makes sense, because the CA is currently legally set up such that anyone can comment, but only members can vote. However, the voting limitation is not enforced by masking, but rather just by the Chair checking who votes against the membership list. This arrangement was intentionally set up to encourage participation, while still giving people a reason to set up.

Regarding a joinable group, we could set that up if there was a forum-access differentiation to give it meaning. For example, if the CA wanted to enforce voting rights technologically rather than manually, it could have a separate voting hall (similar to the voting booth in the oval room) that only members of the group could post in. However, under the current set up, a joinable group would be pointless because there is no masking difference between CA members and non-CA members, and, unlike the current "regular" group, a joinable group can't change a member's "member title" (the group listed on the left under the poster's avatar).
 
Alright. Then if we don't even have to change the Ordinance (and can rely on Chairs to do the job themselves), we should be fine. Heck, I know I'm perfectly comfortable keeping track of membership.

Databases!
 
Rather, not extra work (not for someone like me), but definitely not keeping on top of membership would potentially create problems.
Click to expand...
If I had a nickel for every single time a CA Chair gave me an admin request to remove CA maskings from people that weren't even citizens anymore...in other words, how much of a focus is keeping "on top of membership" really? :p
 
Kuramia said:
Alright. Then if we don't even have to change the Ordinance (and can rely on Chairs to do the job themselves), we should be fine. Heck, I know I'm perfectly comfortable keeping track of membership.

Databases!
Click to expand...
Databases are life. :p
 
You couldn't simply cross-check their name against a list?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top